Bioethics

What rhymes with whisper, is simple and inexpensive to use, more significant to the history of medicine than the discovery of antibiotics, and was named a weapon of mass destruction by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence? It is called CRISPR, an elegant and perilous new scientific method for altering the genomes of living organisms.Read

Researchers at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia have successfully gestated fetal lambs in artificial wombs referred to as “biobags.” Although some might be concerned that the breakthrough foreshadows a future where women’s bodies are no longer needed for gestation, the largest alarmists so far seem to be defenders of abortion, one of whom fears the technology “could blur the line between a fetus and a baby.” Read

While most (99.9%) of the human genome (DNA) is found in chromosomes in the cell nucleus, a small percentage (0.1%) of our DNA is found in the mitochondria—small bean-shaped structures which float around within the cell. Among other things, mitochondria use oxygen to convert the energy from food into a form cells can use. Mutations in this mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which can cause metabolic and degenerative diseases, and forms of cancer, are the driving force behind three-parent babies. Read

September is Suicide Prevention Month. To celebrate, the D.C. Council is considering a measure to legalize physician-assisted suicide with a bill which surrealistically claims “actions taken in accordance with this act do not constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide under the law.” We are reminded of Humpty Dumpty who tells Alice that when he uses a word “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” Read

It was recently reported that the Miranda clinic in Caracas is now sterilizing 40 women a week during its weekly “sterilization day” and has a waiting list of 500 women. This is the solution proposed for a country which exhausted its supply of birth control in July 2015 and is now out of most medicines. While avoiding pregnancy in difficult times can be well intentioned, good intentions do not justify immoral means. Read

You check into a hospital for a routine procedure. They ask you if you have a living will. You say no. They slide a form in front of you with simplistic questions such as: Do you want to be resuscitated if you go into cardiac arrest? Do you want mechanical ventilation if you are unable to breath? Do you want nutrients and fluids supplied to your body if you’re unconscious? Your gut tells you the questions are superficial. What should you do? Read

Historically, the distinction between “man” and all other creatures has been relatively unchallenged, being established in religious texts as well as borne out in science and experience. Though cultural changes and legal perspectives are making this less obvious than heretofore, the truth remains intact—our own self-image is attacked when humanity is approached without due dignity. Read

The International Summit on Human Gene Editing took place last week in Washington, D.C. Gene editing is the modification or elimination of certain sequences within strands of DNA. There are a number of tools capable of editing genes; some so simple that “amateurs” are able to undertake gene editing experiments. While gene editing holds the promise of excising mutated genes which cause illness, it is not without its risks and ethical dilemmas. Read

On November 6, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear the case of The Little Sisters of the Poor, the fourth legal challenge to Obamacare heard by the Court since Obamacare was passed. Why is this case significant? The Court will finally take up a key constitutional question that it did not touch in the Hobby Lobby case: Does the government have a “compelling interest” in ensuring that American employers pay full coverage for contraception and abortion drugs for their employees? Read

Imagine a pregnant woman diagnosed with uterine cancer and the only treatment alternative is a hysterectomy which would likely save her life, but surely end in the death of the child. Absent any action, both are expected to die. In such an instance, is the loss of the child permissible? The answer is simple, but the logic is worth understanding well. Read